Right and she’s getting a lot of heat for that and there is no evidence she meant it like that. It was likely a long interview, and The Prez brought up one story and later or before Michelle mentioned her cute little story. People magazine took it out of context- deliberately, since they pushed it** HARD!**
So why did she say this, at the end:
The context was they were discussing the idea that people figure the Obamas are shielded from racism, living in the White House:
Emphasis added.
Note: Even this “source article” I linked to is clipped, since they want you to join to get the full article. Ain’t gonna happen for me…
I dont see that as the context that the Obamas started with. It’s the context that People magazine pushed in order to sell zines.
“Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new” could mean that tall people are asked to help short people or that Celebrities arent always recognized.
I guess if you try as hard as you possible can, you can pretend that comment wasn’t about racism. “Those kinds of things happen in life” is what you say about things that are tragic, disappointing, or unfortunate. Being tall is none of those things. Nor is being a celebrity.
Considering the way she explained this exact incident before, and there’s nothing that references racism in the second use/quote, it doesn’t seem stretching it that much to assume that this original explanation is how she actually feels about it.
Except for the fact that she change an important detail the 2nd time around as already noted. And everything else in that article is about racism.
Now, you can believe that the magazine wrote an article that was 100% about racism and then decided to plop something unrelated to racism right in the middle without any indication that the subject had changed. But I would submit that is the least parsimonious explanation, not the most.
Could you refresh my memory about this detail?
I don’t think it’s the least or most parsimonious explanation, but falls right into the middle of normal journalistic practices (especially in ‘soft’ journalism).
It’s just not surprising to me at all if a magazine takes a quote out of context and applies to a different subject in which it superficially appears to fit. It’s not a hit piece – but it sounds like it could be normal, day-to-day lazy journalism.
Or it could be the First Lady changing the motives she assumed for why she was asked to reach the high-up thing in the store. That’s very possible, but I don’t think that’s clearly a more likely explanation than lazy journalism. Perhaps I’m biased by my belief that Michelle Obama is a very intelligent and coherent thinker and speaker, but I think lazy journalism is more likely in this case.
Originally, she said she was “under cover”. She emphasized the fact that she was trying not to be recognized. In the second story (what we are talking about now), she described herself as “not heavily disguised”-- that is, she deemphasized it. The first time around, it was told as a humorous story. The second time it was one of “Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.”
What evidence do you have, other than pure speculation, that the quote was taken out of context? Without any actual evidence, I’d don’t see any reason to suspect that to be the case.
That’s not changing a detail, that’s just saying something in different ways, with different emphasis.
Only that when she told the story before, the motivations she ascribes are not racist. The only evidence, of course, that the quote is actually in context (with respect to racism) is that it’s in a story about racism.
Did you read the original account? If not, then I suggest you do. The first story is all about how she was so concerned that her “cover” had been blown. She changed a detail-- the detail being how she dressed.
The only evidence that it’s about racism is that it’s in a story where everything else is about racism? Well, I can’t imagine why you’d want any other evidence unless you simply don’t want to believe that she was recounting a story about racism.
And that’s not the only evidence. You’ve never addressed how her statement that “Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new” is best described as NOT about racism.
Just to be clear: your thesis is that she was just talking about having her cover as First Lady being blown. Is that something that just happens in this life; something that’s not new? Makes no sense in your version. Makes perfect sense as an anecdote about subtle racism, which is how her husband refers to that and other stories in his next quote.
That’s not what her first story was about (we’re talking about the late night talk show bit, right? That’s the one I watched) – it was about how she was worried her cover was blown, but it turned out someone was just asking her to reach for something high – so her cover was not blown. And yes, that kind of thing does “just happen” in life all the time.
You might be right – I just see lazy journalism as equally or more likely than MO changing her story.
We’re going to have to agree to disagree, especially if you think “those things happen in life. It’s nothing new” is more likely to apply to the First Lady NOT having her cover blown as opposed to MO experiencing subtle racism.
It should also be noted that ALL the mainstream media reporting this event (including Rueters, AP, WashPo) interpreted this the way I did, not the way you did. I have not seen one mainstream media making a claim that this quote was taken out of context. Perhaps you have…
I thought the “those things happen…” was from the President, not MO.
I haven’t looked at any media at all for this story other than what was linked here.